{"id":39570,"date":"2023-01-03T12:03:01","date_gmt":"2023-01-03T12:03:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/expect-more-headlines-from-the-supreme-court-in-the-new-year\/"},"modified":"2023-01-03T12:03:01","modified_gmt":"2023-01-03T12:03:01","slug":"expect-more-headlines-from-the-supreme-court-in-the-new-year","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/expect-more-headlines-from-the-supreme-court-in-the-new-year\/","title":{"rendered":"Expect more headlines from the Supreme Court in the new year"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> \n<\/p>\n<div>\n<p>After an action-packed start to the term, the Supreme Court returns to the bench next week for the first winter oral argument sitting. And while the term was frontloaded with <a href=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/opinion\/judiciary\/3658913-expect-fireworks-from-the-supreme-courts-2022-2023-term\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">headline-grabbing cases<\/a>, the court has a few high-profile cases coming up \u2014 and even more waiting in the wings.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In February, the justices will hear two cases involving whether tech companies can be held responsible for content posted by their users. In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/gonzalez-v-google-llc\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Gonzalez v. Google<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/twitter-inc-v-taamneh\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Twitter v. Taamneh<\/a>, the families of victims of ISIS terrorist attacks sued Google, Twitter and Facebook for allowing ISIS to use these platforms to post videos, recruit members, and generally spread their message. The cases turn on whether big-tech companies are editorializing when they create platforms that use algorithms to promote and recommend third-party content.\u00a0<\/p>\n<aside class=\"ad-unit ad-unit--mr1_ab\">\n<\/aside>\n<p>Federal law allows U.S. nationals or their survivors to seek damages for injuries caused \u201cby reason of an act of international terrorism\u201d against anyone who \u201caids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance\u201d to the acts of terrorism. The families argue that, because the tech companies did not remove ISIS\u2019s content, they are liable for murders that occurred during ISIS attacks in Paris, Istanbul and San Bernardino, Calif.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The tech companies maintain that Section 230 of the <a href=\"https:\/\/transition.fcc.gov\/Reports\/tcom1996.txt\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Communications Decency Act<\/a> immunizes them from liability for content created by third parties. The lower court issued a mixed result, and the Supreme Court has been asked to consider whether <a href=\"https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/USCODE-2020-title47\/pdf\/USCODE-2020-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Section 230<\/a> immunizes the tech companies. The outcome likely will renew debates about regulating big tech, which has been a hot topic on Capitol Hill \u2014 a fact that may weigh on the justices\u2019 minds. There are more cases making their way to the court challenging state laws that seek to regulate social media companies, so there\u2019s a good chance this won\u2019t be the last the justices hear about reining in big tech.<\/p>\n<p>Also in February, the Supreme Court will hear two cases challenging President Biden\u2019s student loan forgiveness plan. Last August, the Biden administration announced a plan to forgive $20,000 in federally held student loans for an estimated 40 million borrowers. The administration relied on the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/olc\/file\/1528451\/download\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">HEROES Act<\/a>, which was passed during the Iraq War to temporarily relieve servicemembers and their families of certain student loan obligations. The Education Department did not engage in the usual rulemaking process \u2014 which includes public notice and comment \u2014 before rolling out the plan.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Several groups (including my employer, <a href=\"https:\/\/pacificlegal.org\/case\/student-loans-lawsuit-separation-of-powers\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Pacific Legal Foundation<\/a>) challenged the plan before it went into effect. Two cases have reached the Supreme Court. In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/biden-v-nebraska-2\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Biden v. Nebraska<\/a>, several states argue that the half-trillion-dollar plan will harm a state-run loan servicer. In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/department-of-education-v-myra-brown-2\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Department of Education v. Brown<\/a>, two borrowers claim they were harmed by not being able to comment on the proposed plan before it was finalized. The Biden administration maintains that none of these parties has standing to sue because they haven\u2019t suffered any concrete injury. Identifying parties harmed by the plan has been difficult because the administration continually <a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/opinion\/bidens-student-loan-handout-admin-desperate-avoid-legal-challenges\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">\u201crevised\u201d it on the fly<\/a> to shut down lawsuits.<\/p>\n<p>There also are several interesting petitions that the Supreme Court has not taken up, but may soon.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Petitions filed by Pacific Legal Foundation \u2014 <a href=\"https:\/\/pacificlegal.org\/case\/nebraska-home-equity-theft-tax-foreclosure\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Fair v. Continental Resources<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/pacificlegal.org\/case\/mn_home_equity_theft\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/pacificlegal.org\/case\/nebraska-home-equity-theft-tax-foreclosure\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Nieveen v. TAX 106<\/a> \u2014 ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a practice called \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/homeequitytheft.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">home equity theft<\/a>.\u201d This is when municipal governments seize people\u2019s property when they fall behind on their taxes, sell it, and then keep all the money from the sale \u2014 including any excess beyond the taxes owed. In <a href=\"https:\/\/pacificlegal.org\/case\/rafaeli-llc-v-oakland-county\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">one case<\/a>, a Michigan man underpaid his property taxes by $8.41 and the county sold his home and kept the full $24,500.\u00a0<\/p>\n<aside class=\"ad-unit ad-unit--mr2_ab\">\n<\/aside>\n<p>The petitions argue this practice violates the Fifth Amendment\u2019s prohibition on government taking private property without just compensation and the Eighth Amendment\u2019s bar on excessive fines. The states that engage in this practice assert that people are given sufficient notice to protect their property interests. There is a deepening split between several federal courts and state supreme courts on the constitutionality of the practice of taking property in this manner and keeping more than what is owed.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Another petition to watch is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<\/a>, which challenges a controversial legal doctrine that helped aid in the growth of the regulatory state. Under the doctrine known as <a href=\"https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Chevron_deference_(doctrine)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Chevron deference<\/a>, judges are required to defer to a regulatory agency\u2019s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes the agency is charged with carrying out. This case involves the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fisheries.noaa.gov\/resource\/document\/magnuson-stevens-fishery-conservation-and-management-act\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Magnuson-Stevens Act<\/a>, which authorizes the Commerce Department to require commercial fishing boats to carry observers who monitor their compliance with a web of federal regulations.\u00a0<\/p>\n<aside class=\"thehill-promo-link\">\n\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/opinion\/energy-environment\/3795862-4-reasons-to-give-up-defending-fossil-fuels\/\" class=\"thehill-promo-link__link\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><br \/>\n\t\t4 reasons to give up defending fossil fuels\t<\/a><br \/>\n\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/opinion\/energy-environment\/3795817-compared-to-europe-the-american-farm-system-is-more-efficient-and-sustainable\/\" class=\"thehill-promo-link__link\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><br \/>\n\t\tCompared to Europe, the American farm system is more efficient and sustainable\t<\/a><br \/>\n\t<\/aside>\n<p>The Commerce Department interprets the law to permit it to force the fishermen to pay these observers\u2019 salaries, despite the statute not expressly authorizing this. The lower court held that the Commerce Department\u2019s argument was a \u201creasonable way\u201d of resolving statutory silence on the matter of paying these observers. Recently, the Supreme Court declined to jettison Chevron while also distancing itself from the doctrine. Meanwhile, the doctrine runs rampant in the lower courts.\u00a0<\/p>\n<aside class=\"ad-unit ad-unit--mr3_ab\">\n<\/aside>\n<p>These are just a few cases to keep an eye on when the Supreme Court returns. The justices also may start issuing opinions in cases they heard in the fall, but we likely won\u2019t see opinions in the biggest cases of the term until late spring or summer.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><em>Elizabeth Slattery (<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ehslattery\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>@EHSlattery<\/em><\/a><em>) is a senior legal fellow at <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/pacificlegal.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Pacific Legal Foundation<\/em><\/a><em> and co-host of \u201c<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/pod.link\/dissed\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Dissed<\/em><\/a><em>,\u201d a podcast about the Supreme Court.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><script async src=\"\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><br \/>\n<br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/news.google.com\/__i\/rss\/rd\/articles\/CBMia2h0dHBzOi8vdGhlaGlsbC5jb20vb3Bpbmlvbi9qdWRpY2lhcnkvMzc5MDY2My1leHBlY3QtbW9yZS1oZWFkbGluZXMtZnJvbS10aGUtc3VwcmVtZS1jb3VydC1pbi10aGUtbmV3LXllYXIv0gFvaHR0cHM6Ly90aGVoaWxsLmNvbS9vcGluaW9uL2p1ZGljaWFyeS8zNzkwNjYzLWV4cGVjdC1tb3JlLWhlYWRsaW5lcy1mcm9tLXRoZS1zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LWluLXRoZS1uZXcteWVhci9hbXAv?oc=5\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>After an action-packed start to the term, the Supreme Court returns to the bench next week for the first winter oral argument sitting. And while the term was frontloaded with headline-grabbing cases, the court has a few high-profile cases coming up \u2014 and even more waiting in the wings.\u00a0 In February, the justices will hear &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":39571,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[161],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39570"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39570\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39571"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.brandon.ddtest.info\/multisite-test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}